Heavy Cavalry Sword vs Light Cavalry Sabre Sparring (on foot) 

I was hoping there was another Sharpe fan here

@@Crazyasianman286 nooo. he was not cavalry. Interesting to see the swords used in their "worst case scenario". The Richard here is shouting "A kingdom for my horse".

@@tasharch Richard Sharpe uses the 1796 heavy cavalry sword. What do you mean no??

It’s only Richard sharpe if someone gets a knee to the groin or stomach

Stan Holmes what's the difference between light cavalry sabre a backsword?

Nikil Bellad A backsword is a straight sword usually with a basket hilt or shearing sword hilt. A light cavalry sabre is essentially a curved backsword with a more open hilt.

Levi Fontaine I see thank you

As in the description, it is a copy of 1796 troopers sword, with the modified tip. A number of units and individuals ground down the tips in to spear points. Otherwise it is regular trooper spec.

Thanks. I got them mixed up as they looked very similar.

It was a most... amusing watch.

Bahahahaha! Yeah, I'm sure they'll get the hang of it! They've got quality instructors! Seems like they need to "offend" more and utilise a few of the techniques they've learned, but you have to start somewhere, right? Just...No sword tag in the HEMA gym pliss!!! ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

I'll be reviewing it early next week. It really depends on your contact levels. For me yes I am happy to wear it for most steel sparring including the types you mention. But I know plenty of our students would want more padding. Its really down to the individual.

We've done it, see here - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fXTrrlykdz0.html

Neither have practiced sport fencing at all. I am on the right, and Rick on the left is one of my students. The style used is British military sabre/broadsword of the Napoleonic era. The heavy cavalry sword is a better weapon in this scenario, especially as his represents the slightly shortened spear point modified versions. The extra guard gives good protection without compromising movement like an enclosed basket does, whilst the balance is closer to the hult and its more agile, whilst still carrying serious cutting power. The light cavalry sabres only advantage is in its cutting power. It's slower and less agile to use, but brutal in its cutting power.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing out of interest do you have any riders in your group? I'm thinking about the mounted/dismounted use of the sword. In fact that's the very reason I'm here.

The complaint is about it being too heavy and unwieldy. But a great deal of the complaints are from collectors well after the fact either judging it without knowing really anything about fighting, or re-hashing a few complaints in the period. Now, complaints from soldiers about equipment are a fact of life. Various soldiers and experts complained about every sword pattern ever used in the British armed forces, even those models that were also famously successful, like the light cav. A lot of the problem comes from the tip, the horridly shaped hatchet tip was a terrible design, which is why so many individuals modified them, and various Regiments put out orders to do so as well. The other issue is that they are often compared to the French straight swords, and lots of people find them clumsy and unwieldy in comparison. But that is a failure to understand the differences in their intended use. The French sword was designed primarily as a thruster, as so is longer and more agile, but poor at cutting. The 1796 heavy was designed as a heavy cutter. If you look at first hand accounts you can see the heavy cav was used to great effect. Once the tip was modified to either a more shallower tapering asymmetrical tip, or spear point, they were actually a good all round sword. This tip mod also usually makes them a little more agile too.

Academy of Historical Fencing thanks for the reply. My opinion about the sword is that it was pretty decent for the time. I've seen some originals in museums and browsed some archives and nothing about the characteristics of the sword would ever suggest that it would be poor at being a cutter. I wish that the opinion about them being rubbish was less prevalent because to me, they look like lovely swords and if I ever managed to buy an original, I have no doubt that it would handle perfectly fine as a cutter

Indeed. I have handled quite a number of them now. In original troopers form with the hatchet tip they are quite a beast, but far from the unwieldy monster their are painted as. They cut very well, they have good reach and a great guard. They are just a good old traditional backsword really. Slightly shortened and with hatchet tip and they are actually a really nice sword. Officers versions are the best though. Some of the officers versions are some of the nicest swords of the period. Not just looking great, but being really very agile, whilst still cutting and thrusting really well. My favourite example is this one. Everything about it is just wonderful. A fantastic sword in looks, handling and usability. www.flickr.com/photos/155366595@N06/38959140691/in/album-72157687926586963/

Academy of Historical Fencing you have opened up another question actually about officer variants of the sword. I don't have a lot of knowledge about them but, from what I can gather, they seem to be somewhat like the spadroons of the era in terms of their hilt construction? Is this the wrong idea?

The heavy cavalry officer's sword that looks like a spadroon is not a fighting sword, it is an officers dress sword. Their 'undress' sword is the fighting sword, and it features the same blade as the standard troopers sword, but with a more elaborate hilt, but still with the same level of protection. See the flickr link in my last response for photos of one.

Not a fan, and no I wouldn't say they are superior. Thumb rings were fitted to a number of hilt types, famously the dussack/tessack, Schiavona, Walloon Sword, and of course, some Eastern European sabres. Though they were actually rather short lived. The fact that all of these sword types continued on very successfully without the thumb rings speaks volumes. I think it was really just found redundant. Of course this is a hot topic and there are some fanatical followers for thumb rings. But I have used a lot, including original swords that we own, and they lack a little dexterity, are not so nice to thrust with, and also increase the chances of breaking the thumb and damaging the wrist.

They also don't play well with sparring gloves.

Fair enough

Actually, if you've read the description of the video they clearly state that the straight blade is the heavy sabre while the curved one is the light sabre The red one just doesn't move a lot because he calculates his moves unlike the other dude who rushes in bashing like a lunatic

Sabre was well loved for cavalry and infantry use, they just usually have slightly different weight/proportions. But the reality is cavalry swords also got used on foot, sometimes out of neccessity and sometimes choice.

These are both British swords rather than cuirassier (Which Britain didn't use at this time). The cuirassier swords are very different, very long thrust centric swords. Wheres the British heavy is much more intended for cutting. The reason the British light and heavy cav used different swords is in large part tradition. The man who helped design the light cavalry sabre campaigned for its adoption by both heavy and light cav, but the heavies resisted, wanting to stick with tradition of a long straight broadsword. It could be argued that their intended role was significant, as heavies were intended as a blutn instrument to take on other cavalry and infantry. Whereas the light were in theory intended for harassing actions of skirmishers, artillery, scouting duties etc. In reality, they often ended up doing much the same as the heavies. After the Napoleonic period the light and heavy swords became much closer in type, and eventually in 1853, they began to use the same pattern. Frankly their are advantages and disadvantages to both, and so its no surprise that the later swords took ideas from both.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thanks for the very detailed answer!